Also on Portfolio

Bring Me the Head of Jerry Yang

How Airlines Can Survive High Fuel Costs

Top Editor Quits Murdoch's Wall Street Journal

In science, as in most things, you usually get what you pay for. Money doesn't always mean you get the best. Just ask the New York Yankees so far this season.

But when a nation has been the world leader at something as vital as, say, medical research and regulation, and annual funding is flat or declining when it used to go up, then money may matter.

The stakes for America were spelled out in a panel discussion held at the first-ever World Science Foundation last weekend in New York.

"I think there's a loss of American power and prestige that came about as a result of our anti-science policies," said biologist David Baltimore, a Nobel laureate and the chairman of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Harold Varmus, another Nobel laureate and the president of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York, decried the lack of attention being paid to advancing science even in the current presidential campaign. "The campaign so far has given too little attention to what science means for our own economy and our status in the world," he said.

This comes as reports and recommendations have been piling up describing the slowdown in research grants and projects at the National Institutes of Health since budgets began a decline in 2004.

The American Association for the Advancement of Science concluded last spring that five years of shrinking budgets have led to an institute that is "falling further and further behind the increasing challenges and costs of biomedical research."

Last week, the Senate voted to add $400 million tacked onto President Bush's 2009 budget. That is less than the $600 million Congress added to the budget in 2007 and 2008, but better than the zero percent increase asked for by the president.

Even more acute is the situation at the Food and Drug Administration, where a report from an advisory panel described an agency in such desperate need for funding that it is in a state of near dysfunction.

The report, issued by the agency's Subcommittee on Science and Technology in January, said that the F.D.A. "cannot fulfill its mission" in part "because its scientific workforce does not have sufficient capacity and capability."

The culprit, the panel concluded, was a lack of funding and resources for an agency that oversees virtually all food and drugs American's consume. F.D.A. regulates $1 trillion of the nation's economy with a budget of $2.27 billion in 2008—about $7.50 for every American. (See my column, F.D.A. on the Brink?)

Yet the president's budget provided only a minuscule increase in the budget of the Food and Drug Administration, up $50.7 million to a total of $2.4 billion. (This includes user fees paid by drug companies asking the F.D.A. to approve new drugs.) This anemic increase does not even cover salary increases, and is also supposed to pay for several hundred new inspectors and other personnel.

The situation is so dire that a few days ago Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach—a political appointee who serves at the pleasure of the president—appealed to Congress to raise his agency's budget $275 million above what his boss asked for.

Earlier, von Eschenbach faced a maelstrom of criticism of the administration's meager budget increase. He sent the request and detailed plan for spending it to Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who had asked von Eschenbach provide him with this information "to protect the public health."

According to The New York Times, Specter added in a handwritten note in the letter's margins: "Andy, I know the situation is extreme. I want to get you financial help now."

The Senate responded with a rather paltry increase of about $72 million for the F.D.A. Again, that's better than nothing, though the January report and others have called for much steeper increases, along with major reforms in how the agency is organized and how it works.

In a demonstration of how tough it is to get science funded in the Bush II era, Senate leaders tucked both budget increases into a $156 billion war and veterans' appropriations bill. That measure passed the Senate by a wide enough margin to override a threatened veto from the president. The House didn't include the raise in its version of the bill, but is expected to agree to the increase in conference.

Like so many other things, the task of recovering from Bush's distressing disinterest in science will be left to the next president.

Merely spending money, however, will not restore the waning prestige and power of American science, as articulated by Baltimore and Varmus. Nor will it insure that the life sciences in America will continue to produce breakthroughs and treatments that have benefited millions of people.

What is needed is leadership from the White House and Congress in ensuring that our federal medical research and oversight establishment is the best it can be, and that it's funding is adequate to as much benefit to people in the future as it has to generations past.

1942: Without ever sighting one another, Japanese and American task forces engage near the Midway Atoll, marking the turning point of the Pacific war and ringing down the curtain on the battleship as a dominant offensive naval weapon.

The Battle of Midway began only a month after the inconclusive Battle of the Coral Sea, which was the first time two opposing fleets slugged it out without making visual contact. Airplanes, specifically the dive bomber and the torpedo plane, were the weapons that made this possible and changed the nature of war at sea.

As a result, aircraft carriers now emerged as the most important ships in the fleet, relegating other surface ships to carrier-escort and picket duty, and -- in the case of the battleship and heavy cruiser -- to shore bombardment in support of troop landings.

At Midway, the Japanese committed most of their fleet to the battle they believed would sweep the Americans from the seas, giving them time to consolidate their burgeoning Asian empire and extend their defensive perimeter into the central Pacific. Four fleet carriers -- Akagi, Kaga, Soryu and Hiryu -- formed two strike forces intended to reduce the American fleet, which would then be destroyed by the battleships.

The American aircraft carriers, which were spared destruction at Pearl Harbor by being at sea that Dec. 7, were the primary targets.

The success of the complex Japanese plan -- devised by Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, architect of the Pearl Harbor raid -- rested on deception. Because of this it was bound to failure before a shot was fired, since, unbeknownst to the Japanese, the Americans had broken their naval code and were able to anticipate Yamamoto's every move.

Coupled with this was the fact that Japan's own intelligence proved poor, underestimating the size of the American fleet, and particularly the number of aircraft carriers available to the enemy.

The battle lasted three-and-a-half days. When it was over, all four Japanese carriers had been lost, a number of other surface ships had also been sunk or damaged, and many of the best air crews were dead. The Americans lost the aircraft carrier Yorktown and a number of air crews, but were in far better shape than the Japanese to make good their losses.

The Imperial Japanese Navy was effectively broken at Midway. Although it would remain a formidable force into 1944, it was no longer a dominant one.

Source: U.S. Navy, Wikipedia

According to some people, there are only 36 basic story plots that just get reused. Others say there are merely 20. Some people even say there's only one plot, but they probably just watch too many Michael Bay movies. I like the theory that there are only seven plots. It's a nice round number, and the plots are vague enough that you can shoehorn anything from Citizen Kane to a cereal commercial into them.

In the spirit of oversimplifying things so that you can smugly shove human endeavors into pre-labeled slots, I'd like to present my own, contemporary take on this premise: the Seven Basic Blog Posts.

Download audio files and subscribe to the Alt Text podcast.

Terrible things are happening in one of the following: the world, the web or a television show you really like. Make a blog post about it! People will comment about how much they agree with you. Then they'll make their own blog posts about the subject, and other people will comment about how much they agree with them. If we all work together we'll learn that we can make a real impact on our pageviews.

For too long, the mainstream media have shoved advertising down our throats. It's time for us to take the reins of mass communication and shove advertising down each other's throats! If we both see the same overproduced movies and lust after the same overpriced devices, then maybe the bitter wind of loneliness won't bite quite so fiercely.

Nobody likes animals when they act like animals. Videos of a cat snapping a robin's neck don't go big. No, we like animals when we can convince ourselves that they're just like us, only with worse spelling. For the purposes of this category, animals also includes babies and children younger than 8.

Try this: Put up videos of yourself volunteering at a soup kitchen, giving a speech at a symposium and breaking your arm in seven places doing the "shopping cart luge." Guess which one will get the most hits. We like our animals to appear smarter than they really are and our humans dumber, which means that the perfect internet celebrity would be a somewhat slow-witted centaur. In a Darth Vader outfit.

Liking new things takes so much effort. You have to learn all these unfamiliar characters or remember completely new lyrics. It's much easier to like something that you already know about. The Matrix -- in cookie form! The Lord of the Rings -- if Frodo was a ninja! The Mario Bros. theme song -- played on the hollowed-out skulls of owls! We're already starting to see this undergo a third iteration: Star Wars, only with homemade lightsabers, only in a Weezer video! In about 10 seconds, someone's going to make a Lego version of that video, bringing it to the fourth level.

This includes homemade experiments involving explosives, as well as actual scientific studies. There are two types of scientific studies: Ones you agree with, and ones you don't. If you disagree with a study, you should link to it and point out how stupid and biased it is. If you agree, you should link to it and point out how ridiculous it is that scientists get paid to state the obvious. Either way, you're educating your readers that you're smarter than science.

We've reached an age where egotism is considered too much work. Why discuss your hopes and fears when you can just post the results of online tests, show cartoon versions of yourself and collect "friends"? It's a good thing Anais Nin wasn't a blogger, or instead of a steamy tale of sexual awakening and creative fervor, we'd just know that if she was a Ninja Turtle, she'd be Raphael.

- - -

Born helpless, nude and unable to provide for himself, Lore Sjöberg eventually overcame these handicaps to become a blogger, a logger and an otter.

Speech technology has long languished in the no-man's land between sci-fi fantasy ("Computer, engage warp drive!") and disappointing reality ("For further assistance, please say or press 1 ...").

But that's about to change, as advances in computing power make voice recognition the next big thing in electronic security and user-interface design.

A whole host of highly advanced speech technologies, including emotion and lie detection, are moving from the lab to the marketplace.

"This is not a new technology," says Daniel Hong, an analyst at Datamonitor who specializes in speech technology. "But it took a long time for Moore's Law to make it viable."

Hong estimates that the speech technology market is worth more than $2 billion, with plenty of growth in embedded and network apps.

It's about time. Speech technology has been around since the 1950s, but only recently have computer processors grown powerful enough to handle the complex algorithms that are required to recognize human speech with enough accuracy to be useful.

There are already several capable voice-controlled technologies on the market. You can issue spoken commands to devices like Motorola's Mobile TV DH01n, a mobile TV with navigation capabilities, and TomTom's GO 920 GPS navigation boxes. Microsoft recently announced a deal to slip voice-activation software into cars manufactured by Hyundai and Kia, and its TellMe division is investigating voice-recognition applications for the iPhone. And Indesit, Europe's second-largest home appliances manufacturer, just introduced the world's first voice-controlled oven.

Yet as promising as this year's crop of voice-activated gadgets may be, they're just the beginning.

Speech technology comes in several flavors, including the speech recognition that drives voice-activated mobile devices; network systems that power automated call centers; and PC applications like the MacSpeech Dictate transcription software I'm using to write this article.

Voice biometrics is a particularly hot area. Every individual has a unique voice print that is determined by the physical characteristics of his or her vocal tract. By analyzing speech samples for telltale acoustic features, voice biometrics can verify a speaker's identity either in person or over the phone, without the specialized hardware required for fingerprint or retinal scanning.

The technology can also have unanticipated consequences. When the Australian social services agency Centrelink began using voice biometrics to authenticate users of its automated phone system, the software started to identify welfare fraudsters who were claiming multiple benefits -- something a simple password system could never do.

The Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council has issued guidance requiring stronger security than simple ID and password combinations, which is expected to drive widespread adoption of voice verification by U.S. financial institutions in coming years. Ameritrade, Volkswagen and European banking giant ABN AMRO all employ voice-authentication systems already.

Speech recognition systems that can tell if a speaker is agitated, anxious or lying are also in the pipeline.

Computer scientists have already developed software that can identify emotional states and even truthfulness by analyzing acoustic features like pitch and intensity, and lexical ones like the use of contractions and particular parts of speech. And they are honing their algorithms using the massive amounts of real-world speech data collected by call centers.

A reliable, speech-based lie detector would be a boon to law enforcement and the military. But broader emotion detection could be useful as well.

For example, a virtual call center agent that could sense a customer's mounting frustration and route her to a live agent would save time, money and customer loyalty.

"It's not quite ready, but it's coming pretty soon," says James Larson, an independent speech application consultant who co-chairs the W3C Voice Browser Working Group.

Companies like Autonomy eTalk claim to have functioning anger and frustration detection systems already, but experts are skeptical. According to Julia Hirschberg, a computer scientist at Columbia University, "The systems in place are typically not ones that have been scientifically tested."

According to Hirschberg, lab-grade systems are currently able to detect anger with accuracy rates in "the mid-70s to the low 80s."

They are even better at detecting uncertainty, which could be helpful in automated training contexts. (Imagine a computer-based tutorial that was sufficiently savvy to drill you in areas you seemed unsure of.)

Lie detection is a tougher nut to crack, but progress is being made.

In a study funded by the National Science Foundation and the Department of Homeland Security, Hirschberg and several colleagues used software tools developed by SRI to scan statements that were known to be either true or false. Scanning for 250 different acoustic and lexical cues, "We were getting accuracy maybe around the mid- to upper-60s," she says.

That may not sound so hot, but it's a lot better than the commercial speech-based lie detection systems currently on the market. According to independent researchers, such "voice stress analysis" systems are no more reliable than a coin-toss.

It may be awhile before industrial-strength emotion and lie detection come to a call center near you. But make no mistake: They are coming. And they will be preceded by a mounting tide of gadgets that you can talk to -- and argue with.

Don't be surprised if, some day soon, your Bluetooth headset tells you to calm down. Or informs you that your last caller was lying through his teeth.

Forget everything you know about home networking. There's a new wireless frequency called 802.11N that is poised to kick down your door and spread hi-def content through your home up to five times faster than your 802.11G-is-for-geriatric model. Yeah, you'll need a new wireless card to take full advantage of the improved speeds, but, as long as you get a router that broadcasts on both G-friendly 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz, this rising tide lifts all boats: Your old hardware will benefit with longer range as well.

Apple AirPort Extreme

Simple, elegant, clean -- the AirPort Extreme is definitely straight outta Cupertino. It not only looks perfect in the living room (we perched it neatly atop the Xbox 360), but gushes N like a geyser over medium distances. Additions like dual-band operation, along with shared printer/hard-drive support make the AirPort a solid choice for novices and intermediates. But Apple's conservative balance of speed, range and user friendliness might be off-putting for extreme high-speed junkies or those who need a lot of range.

WIRED: Clean-cut, living room-friendly design. Rock star mid-range performance when streaming audio and video. Setup and admin tools simple enough for your parents. Offers both shared disk and printer options through its USB port.

TIRED: Long-range throughput can get sketchy. A smidge on the pricey side. No simultaneous 2.4 GHz/5 GHz broadcasting. Only three gigabit ethernet ports. Minuscule configuration changes require a full reboot.

Price/maker: $180, Apple

Linksys WRT600N

(Photo: Jon Snyder/Wired.com)

You shouldn't have to hide your router … unless it looks anything like the WRT600N. But if you can stop making fun of the satellite dishes for a second, you're in for a treat. Superb long-distance performance and a solid data rate makes this box great for combinations of video streaming, VOIP and game console use. Our only problem? The WRT600N would occasionally throw a hissy fit and kick all our devices off the network. This only happened occasionally, but it was enough to make us wonder if it took the satellite dish remarks to heart.

WIRED: Storage Link feature lets you attach a hard drive for networked storage. Broadcasts on 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz simultaneously. Supports security options for separating older B/G and N devices. Best long-range performance, and it's no slouch at close and medium ranges either.

TIRED: Something that costs $180 should not look this stupid. You can't control the transmit power, which can be handy if you like to micromanage operating temperature and range.

Price/maker: $180, Linksys

D-Link DIR-655 XtremeN

Our first impulse was to damn this router to the Xtreme hell from which it came. Then we got over the cheesy name, and discovered a machine we actually liked -- for indoor use, at least. The DIR-655 did really well in close- and medium-range tests, but when we tried to go mobile, things got choppy. It's one thing to provide us with speedy connectivity at our desks, but some of us have to hide in the garage to watch Battlestar Gallactica, OK?

WIRED: Great balance between price and features. Delivered fastest prioritized streaming-video traffic. Package includes drywall anchors for mounting. Four gigabit LAN ports.

TIRED: Setup is counterintuitive. Weak long-distance data transfer. Only transmits on the 2.4-GHz band, which doesn't take advantage of N's ability to dodge a crowded spectrum by jumping to channel 5. USB port is only for wireless configuration settings -- not attachable storage. Looks like it might probe you in your sleep.

Price/maker: $140, D-Link

NetGear WNDR3300

NetGear definitely got the memo: When it comes to interference-free web surfing, you can't go wrong with dual bands. However, it's tough to say whether NetGear really understood said memo. This bargain-priced router can transmit over both 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz bands simultaneously, but even with its whopping eight (!) internal antennas, it lagged behind everyone else in the class. Delving into the administrative tools revealed more letdowns, like how you can only get N while you're broadcasting on both channels simultaneously, a problem because it cuts your data stream on either frequency in half.

WIRED: Bargain priced. Hidden antennas make for a clean design. Optional stand keeps unit from heating up. Idiot-proof admin tools accessible via routerlogin.com.

TIRED: Looks like a blinged-out ice cream sandwich. Drags on long distance and multistory data transfers. No gigabit ethernet ports. Clunky install wizard requires disabling your existing router. Occasionally stops broadcasting and requires a power cycle.

Price/maker: $110, Netgear

Belkin N1

We've got some beef with the N1. Sure, it boasts a phenomenal broadcast range. The embedded LCD screen and swank black chassis? Sexy as hell. But the lack of N-only operation? Unforgivable! The router clocked decent speeds in mixed 802.11B/G/N use, but lagged compared with the N-only throughput of other contenders. In the end, the score is clear -- the N1 is less for kilobit-counting speed demons, and more for image-conscious networking n00bs.

WIRED: Stylish design. User-friendly CD-less setup. Outstanding broadcast range. Offers WEP, WPA and WPA2 protection. LCD screen displays everything from time and date to data-transmission details. Gigabit ethernet ports.

TIRED: Priced for style, not performance. Mushy, unresponsive buttons. No N-only operation. Molasses-slow reboot times.

Price/maker: $200, Belkin

The world's first drive-in movie theater opened in Camden, New Jersey, on June 6, 1933. To commemorate the birthday of this magical, endearing and disappearing brand of Americana, we're asking you to submit your best photo of drive-ins around the country.

Use the Reddit widget below to submit your drive-in photo and vote for your favorite among the other submissions. The 10 highest-ranked photos will appear in a gallery on the Wired.com homepage on Friday, June 6.

The photo must be your own, and by submitting it you are giving us permission to use it on Wired.com and in Wired magazine. Please submit images that are relatively large, the ideal size being 800-1200 pixels or larger on the longest side. Please include a description of your photo, which may include exposure information, equipment used, etc.

We don't host the photos, so you'll have to upload it somewhere else and submit a link to it. If you're using Flickr, Picasa or another photo-sharing site to host your image, please provide a link to the image directly and not just to the photo page where it's displayed. If your photo doesn't show up, it's because the URL you have entered is incorrect. Check it and make sure it ends with the image file name (XXXXXX.jpg).

Show entries that are: hot | new | top-rated. Submit your drive-in photo.

(No more than one every 30 minutes. No HTML allowed.)

Back to top